Since mature trees clear roughly 20 kg of CO2 per year, technically we'd need 60 trillion trees for one year, or 60 trillion tree-years, to get back to pre-industrial CO2 levels. But if anyone has an equation to convert tree-years to ideal number of trees planted, please let us know.
Very broadly, it would be better to consider a target date eg: 2050. So we have a goal to sequester 1.2 trillion tCO2e in the next 29 years. Assume trees last the 29years and are all planted today whilst averaging 20 kgCO2e/y sequestration as well as no fires/damage & that we dont add any further CO2e to the atmoshphere over this time (lots of big assumptions). This should require 2.1 trillion trees planted today, assuming 2500 trees per hectare (can be between 1000-2500) provides 830 million hectares which equates to about 6% of the earths total land area.
don't be a sucker. you can tell they don't know what they're talking about when they start talking carbon capture nonsense and acting like the co2 molecule is a pollutant because some ideolog told a computer programmer to model some bs not supported by any valid statistical or otherwise analysis. ever notice most climate alarmists and maskholes are women who everyone knows suck at science?
The solution is it has to be government mandated...look at China for example. They understand a better environment means cleaner air>which leaders to a cleaner and better country>which leads a better world>and their citizens are more content. Now I'm not saying China is perfect by any means but they are at least actively trying to work on this problem not they but we all have at hand.
Well I think that the mass of a tree (not the years) determines how much CO2 is absorbed by a tree and since 47.5% of the dry mass of a tree is carbon for every ton of tree mass we have 50% dry mass and 237.5kg of carbon or 871,63kg of CO2 absorbed. But let's assume that we need to plant 60 trillion trees for one year. Current world population today is ~8 billion so every single human on the planet(babies, children, adults and elderly) must plant 7,500 trees in one year. As we know this is not possible, so lets check who can plant these trees. A rough estimate is that an inexperienced, but physically fit, tree planter can plant 1,000 to 3,000 seedlings per day. A planting machine can plant up to 5,000 trees per hour at well-prepared sites, but we need to build the planting machines first. So lets say generously 1.1 million trees per year per physically fit person whose job is to plant 3000 trees day after day without break all year around. So we'd need 55 million physically fit people dedicated to plant 60 trillion trees or we need build 1,37 million planting machines for the planting job. After planting a tree to grow successfully needs ~50 liters of water per week so we need 3000 cubic km of fresh water every week for the 60 trillion trees. For comparison the Great Lakes of North America hold over 5,439 cubic miles of water or 22,671 cubic km or ~ 7.6 weeks of water for the trees... Not to mention all the logistics for the job. But 20 kg of CO2 per year is for mature trees. A tree becomes mature in around 40 years. Lets be generous and say we must growing them for 30 years. After 30 years of growing we must root out the trees and somehow don't let them rot because they will release the CO2 back to the atmosphere. Is that possible?... It is highly unlikely that tree planting plan to absorb the CO2 emitted from humans is feasible. That not means that we should stop planting trees, on a contrary we should at least restore the amount of deforested land and live more sustainably because we have only one planet that can support life(for now) …
What bothers me is the government selling carbon reductions (aka credits) to companies producing insane quantities of carbon. What's the point of carbon reduction/capture if the government just sells the reduction to companies producing huge quantities of carbon pollution??
Paying for the externalities you produce. These companies should bear the financial burden caused by the problem they made. If that goes to removing an identical amount of carbon as they produce then it's net zero carbon emissions, which is pretty good and very hard. The problem of course comes when they capture the co2 then have no place to store it so they just dump it out and yet still get the credits.
@@the1exnay These companies *RULE* people. You can't just through an angry comment at them stating _"These companies should bear the financial burden ... "_ . It never works.
It's entirely nonsensical. It's a snow job. A complete farse but the people have no idea what the truth is and rely on propaganda shoved down their throats. It's about control and profits. Look, if the environment was really important don't you think things like more returnable bottles and maybe less disposable stuff might be easier? More effective? How many tons of one time use products are consumed daily? Nobody talks about that? Why do you spose that is?
@Work space compression and cooling which can both be done using renewable energy. The much harder part is separating the carbon and oxygen later, which would be impractically energy-intensive. Basic thermodynamics means we'd have to put more energy into that than we got out of burning the carbon in the first place, so short of science-fiction type infinite energy schemes (orbiting solar collectors, hydrogen fusion, etc.) the plan could never be feasible.
The best way to capture carbon is turning former wetlands back into wetlands. Much of the peat is still underground and will remain there once water returns, and new layers can be built up. This is much more effective than planting trees, and will restore an ecosystem that's almost entirely lost today.
But that runs into the same problem trees have: it takes so much space. Deforestation is largely fueled not by needing the wood but rather needing the land they occupy. I suspect it's similar for wetlands.
@@the1exnay It is. But wetlands are much better at this, and need to be restored for a number of other reasons. One is water security, another is biodiversity.
That is one of the best ways but we need many ways since there’s so much co2 in the atmosphere. We will have to utilize many different methods and these technological ones can be helpful.
@@raatoraamro1093 Sadly, these technological ones will only fool people into thinking that 'new inventions will fix things in the future, no need to actually change now', which will doom us. We need to tackle the crisis of biodiversity loss just as much as that of climate change.
@@dhindaravrel8712 these technologies are real and improving. They are an important tool that will help us. However you are right that first and foremost we need to change in order to reduce emissions. This tech alone won’t save us. The people working to develop it will tell you the same thing. I also agree with you that we need to tackle biodiversity loss with the same urgency.
So far, I looked at a few videos on youtube about carbon capture, and this is the best one. Good information about the calcium and magnesium ions in seawater. Thank you.
Thermodynamics: CO2 is the lowest - energy form of carbon. Therefore any process to capture it will require more energy than was obtained from burning it in the first place.
Carbon dioxide is removed from space ships by using zeolite. Why not create a muffler with zeolite for automobiles with control valves to move the CO2 into a storage container.
I'd really like to see a deeper dive into carbonate-based sequestration. It seems like a great solution, but driving the H20 + CO2 ⇌ 2H(+) + CO3(2-) equilibrium right would accelerate oceanic acidification. Thanks for the video. 🙂
@Editor I'm not the poster, but by affecting the balance of that equilibrium and trapping the CO3 somewhere else , you'd be leaving a bunch of extra 2H+ ions around in the ocean. More H+ ions means more acidic, as pH corresponds inversely to the number of [H+] ions.
XPRISE CARBON CAPTURE The heat loss from a smokestack can be forced into a large tank containing hot liquid microcrystalline petroleum wax. The heat will keep the wax at a molten state which facilitate the carbon to be absorbed when combined with the wax. Carbon when mixed with wax reacts like a dye. The wax-carbon amalgamation result in a black wax solution thereby making it impossible for the carbon to escape into the environment. Other toxic particles are also captured in the wax settling at the bottom of the wax holding tank forming into a sludge. A sludge release valve is located at the bottom of the tank. After the sludge is removed more wax is replaced in the vessel working something like a toilet. The sludge becomes a byproduct that can be used as an additive to asphalt for roads or used for cocooning nuclear waste materials for long-term safe burial. The entropy of the Earth has been increasing at a startling rate since the beginning of the industrial revolution caused mainly by the carbon that is released into the atmosphere. Government scientists have failed to stop and prevent carbon pollution from entering the environment. This problem can only worsen until a solution is found before this problem becomes irreversible. It has been discovered that formulated wax has been shown to be the only answer to this problem. William Nelson
Great video! I'm an attorney trying to get involved in building out the massive carbon capture infrastructure that will be needed to realize our climate goals. One suggestion: I don't believe the distinction drawn in the video between carbon capture and storage/sequestration (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is accurate. There's a lot of overlap there, both technically and in general usage in the literature. CCS could technically include natural methods for capturing and storing carbon (e.g., planting trees) but generally refers to industrial techniques like point-source capture (PSC) and direct air capture (DAC), and storage/sequestration through enhanced oil recovery (EOR) or permanent geological sequestration (GS). CDR refers to both natural (e.g., aforestation) and industrial (e.g., DAC with GS) methods of removing carbon from the atmosphere (i.e., capturing carbon) _as well as storing it_. ("Removal" implies not putting carbon back into the atmosphere, so CDR would not include CCUS/EOR techniques.) Basically, CCS includes but is not coextensive with CDR. But again, thanks for the great video. I think it does a very good job explaining the necessity of these technologies and the trade-offs involved. The proposal to capture carbon from seawater and convert it into carbonate solids was news to me, definitely interesting stuff!
Just remember, if you get the hundred million, you promised you share! All joking aside, I hope you don't mind me asking an aside here since you guys are a wonderful combination of knowledgeable, responsive, and forward with acknowledging what limitations on knowledge you DO have. I've asked this at various places and haven't gotten an answer, and I'm always curious, so I keep asking. Regarding seismic activity from fossil fuel extraction... On the global scale, tectonic activity is outside the scale of most human activity, because the Earth is, y'know, MASSIVE. On the local scale, earthquakes are generally just tension being released. That tension will build up, as a result of the Earth's natural activity, no matter what, right? And since most earthquakes caused by the extraction of fossil fuels are, to my knowledge, relatively minor (4-ish on the Richter scale) then... For illustrative purposes I'll use this hypothetical example: If a natural fault line has tension building up that will, within the next few decades, end up causing a 7.0 earthquake... wouldn't man-made quakes in the same area cause a slight decrease in the intensity of the natural quakes? This is clearly a MASSIVE oversimplification, but if a 7.0 earthquake equals a thousand 4.0 earthquakes, then wouldn't it be better to have, say, one or two 4.0 earthquakes every week than one 7.0 earthquake every fifty years? This is not meant to dismiss of excuse fracking and other things. I'm just honestly curious if the seismic effects (I should have added that this question only applies in areas out regular seismic activity) are maybe not that bad of a side effect. Like... a seismic safety valve? Apologies for the tangential question. The core content was fascinating and I won't have any questions until I do a proper deep dive into the awesome information you've presented here. And, as always, thank you all for everything
Deep saline formations are not deep in the ocean but deep underground, commonly deeper than oil and gas reservoirs. They can be underground both onshore and offshore.
I'm not an expert by any means, but if we are saying that we're planting trees so as to get back to pre-industrial carbon levels and we're likewise no longer emitting 43 billion tons of C02 per year then it seems like you would want to target carbon recapture goals for say 50 years? That way you're not just yanking global C02 and causing a massive swing in global climate and weather patterns. Plus when you eventually reach desired atmospheric C02 you don't want to end up in a situation where C02 is deeply net negative. That means you would be pulling about 26 billion tons of C02 out of the atmosphere per year and increasing the number of trees on earth by about a third
Yea good point Jaykob, however, the problem right now is that we have too much of CO2. And, to worry about its shortage when it is record high is like your bladder is full of pee and you are afraid you might dehydrate if you pee...the point is - you solve one problem at a time.
Establishing artificial islands to plant mangroves? Humanity has lost half of its coastal wetlands to coastal construction, yet mangrove forest are amongst the best carbon sequestrators. Since in many instances removing coastal communities and infrastructures is not an option, maybe we could establish artificial reefs in shallow areas of the ocean and use them to plant mangroves. Expensive, yes, but China and others have already built artificial islands, and the good thing about mangrove stands is that they not only sequester carbon, but store it as well. Any thoughts?
I wouldn't discount planting trees. I don't think we need to go to preindustrial CO2 levels. We just have to plant enough trees to balance the respiratory CO2 from humans atleast on a yearly basis. And calculation suggests having an acreage of almost 2 India. Well, it's large but large projects in increments in large open lands can be a start point. Yes , forests can burn but these re- grow as well and it's not like 50% acreage gets burnt. So point in case , forests are critical and must be on the table.
This is why I'm against putting CO2 into deep sea formations, some archaea will eventually get to it and they might even metabolise it into methane. If we put all our excess CO2 into the sea, and if the archaea got to it, and let's say that methane is 20 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, then suddenly we've just recreated climate change but at 20x scale. I'd much rather take a few hundred small earthquakes on land than the chance of this methane leak happening. But I will say that the carbonate idea sounds much more promising, wouldn't have the archaea problem
I'm not a chemist but I wondered if it was possible to remove the O2 from the carbon which I presume would leave the carbon as charcoal? Then O2 could be released into the atmosphere?
@@06.vineethdsouza80 Yeah, but instead of converting CO2 to C and O2, let's directly use that energy to power the economy. That way the cost will be less. And also hydro is far dirtier than coal plants.
Get the CO2 from the source producing it instead of trying to filter from the open. You'll get more CO2. Create a device that attach things that produce CO2
Maybe instead of one giant fan maybe we can have a bunch of little fans in homes and public spaces that absorb and store co2? Then get the captured co2 taken out once a week like compost, trash and recyclables?
The full paper is available at the link below, but the short answer is that you're using dissolved CO2, Ca, and Mg-all of which are in abundant supply in seawater-to form carbonate minerals. pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c08561
@@ACSReactions Wow, that actually sounds doable. That's the first I've heard of a way to store carbon that doesn't sound like it'll just be rereleased. And it does seem there is way more than enough calcium in seawater to make this possible. This gives me some hope
Is planting 1e12 trees such a bad idea? If we allocate 10m^2 per tree, it would require ~ all of the area of Brazil to have 1e12 trees. Each living human has to plant 10k trees - a grid of 100x100. It's a titanic task, but not impossible. Before humans started burning fossil-fuels, the earth was still spewing out CO2 from volcanoes etc. If a certain number of trees could keep the equilibrium back then, then the same number of trees, plus a bit more to play "catch-up" _must_ be able to revert us back to that equilibrium. PS - 20 kg/yr?? Where does this number come from? Seems tiny for a tree occupying 10m^2.
3:52 Is that an average or using data from mauna loa? I wonder if it would be easier to try to sequester the Carbon around densely populated areas and factories
First of all, don't pull CO2 from the atmosphere, but from the ocean, where it is more concentrated and already dissolved in a solution rather than a gas. Second of all use the natural carbon cycle in your favor to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and into the ocean to replace what you removed. Third of all, use OTEC to power the process. This will allow you to utilize the entire surface of the ocean as a giant solar thermal collector. Finally don't store it as CO2 but rather as hydrocarbons, carbonates, or pure carbon allotropes from diamond to graphene to carbon nanotubes.
OK, I look at the article. I'm seeing a crystal growth in an insulation I'm Making. I don't understand it. But I'm using the same materials but in a different process.
@@ivanlu4044 No, she didn't. She just dismissed them as "too slow". But I can challenge, if we start planting more trees, restoring forests and habitats right now; it will remove adequate amount of carbon long b4 carbon removal techs comes close to maturity. Not to mention, 900 million trees are cut each day. Just stopping that might be the next best thing to do, not wasting $100million on speculative technology that may never come to fruition.
Imagine if there was a carbon neutral energy production technology that doesn't rely on any form of fossil fuels... Perhaps using the energy built up in big atomic nucleae..? One can only imagine...
Algae is the best option other than trees. Also soil sequestration of carbon which also increases the Cation exchange capacity of the soil making it more fertile.
Censored scientists have noted that the one volcanic eruption in Indonesia emitted more co2 than all the emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution----so is this about a carbon tax? if the military would stop doing Geo engineering-causing floods in Australia, and if they would fill the reservoirs so we can have water, ----yes they let all the flood water out to sea... we could grow crops to eat which also sequesters carbon----??????
For anyone that comes up with the apparatus that will be able to remove the CO2, make sure to patent it and license it to Elon. He has a nasty habit of putting engineers and scientists against each other to "win the price" and then calling it his own and taking credit. So, go engineer a solution and lawyer up and patent it.
Im a bit confused as to why we need to? The carbon we have been releasing into the atmosphere was there initially. Excess Co2 accelerates plant growth. Its part of a cycle. Yes we are just playing a bigger part than say, before the industrial revolution. Why are we acting like its a bad thing? Because we don't live in a static environment and change is scary? btw, the ocean is the largest inorganic reservoir we have. When the balance tips to far, look out for more algae bloom's to exploit that opportunity just as they did in the past. you want actionable solution? people are about 18% carbon, Plant matter is between 50-60% More of those things?... or.....Heat up in a oxygen deprived environment.....Surprise! you now have bricks of carbon, did I win the 100M yet?
Sure. Launching 1Kg of material burns thousands of gallons of kerosene. So, take that captured carbon to Mars, and release thousands of times of more CO2 on Earth in the process. And humans will be on Mars by 2020 just as Musk claimed.
how is it with all these consultants that you didnt get the Musk prize value right- its $50M to the outright winner. The total pot for all the prizes is $100M
If ice and permafrost are melting and freeing co2 why not pump air into the ground where it's cold enough to re trap it? An old well pipe may suffice. An air tube down to water capped air tight with a one way valve running on solar 24/7. A barrel full of water would freeze from the top down. After the top freezes pump air bubbles through the bottom. When it's frozen solid it could be buried. Why bother separating out co2 and methane at all? It seems like any breakthroughs that could help save humanity are being held for ransom that cannot be paid. I believe it's because of a total absence of integrity. The science behind these expensive solutions is used in a sales pitch to scare people into throwing money at it. Oldest trick in the book for the fat guys in sales. It's hard to see the benefits of using tax money to fund science and tech if nobody can afford it. The same could be said for funding businesses. How much are they benefitting the economy if they're polluting, depleting resources, hoarding money from the entire country, undermining our democracy by lobbying, using inflation as leverage, wrecking bodies of workers without providing medical coverage, hacking benefits while collecting from the government and using science against people? That's the problem with businesses. They're only helping themselves at the expense of the rest of us. This is why industry can never serve man...because industry has tricked man into serving industry with blind faith.
Why not bioengineer a fast growing tree with a extremely deep and thick root system? It takes a while to grow, but I suppose could also be used to slow desertification or something?
Heh! Seems like planting tree, building ecosystem, restoring forest are still the best method. I bet you that this will suck out CO2 long b4 CDR technology matures. Not to mention, the fans of CDR plants will emit a hefty amount of themselves, the sea-grass and kelp farms will easily destroy coastal ecosystem.
Trees are not a long term solution as carbon cycle dictates the carbon will be released again at some point. Obviously trees will work just fine in the ultra long term but I don't think humans have 100 million years to spare.
Is charcoaling a potential option? Grow something with absurd growth rates like switchgrass or bamboo, convert it to charcoal, and bury the charcoal back into abandoned coal mines?
Yes, carbon is a chemical element with clear non-metallic properties, from the elements of the periodic table and is found in the periodic table in group IVA (or 4 A
CCS = Carbon Capture & Storage CDR = Carbon Dioxide Removal CCR = Creedence Clearwater Revival We're trying to show the UA-cam audience that we're young and hip.
@@ACSReactions oh yes of course. The "ol' appeal to the he youngsters by makin references to bands that that broke up before their parents were born". A classic. :) now, Personally I would go with a more modern band, that hasn't broken up, like The Who, or One Direction.
Since mature trees clear roughly 20 kg of CO2 per year, technically we'd need 60 trillion trees for one year, or 60 trillion tree-years, to get back to pre-industrial CO2 levels. But if anyone has an equation to convert tree-years to ideal number of trees planted, please let us know.
Very broadly, it would be better to consider a target date eg: 2050. So we have a goal to sequester 1.2 trillion tCO2e in the next 29 years. Assume trees last the 29years and are all planted today whilst averaging 20 kgCO2e/y sequestration as well as no fires/damage & that we dont add any further CO2e to the atmoshphere over this time (lots of big assumptions). This should require 2.1 trillion trees planted today, assuming 2500 trees per hectare (can be between 1000-2500) provides 830 million hectares which equates to about 6% of the earths total land area.
6-12% of the earth to save the earth. LETS DO IT
don't be a sucker. you can tell they don't know what they're talking about when they start talking carbon capture nonsense and acting like the co2 molecule is a pollutant because some ideolog told a computer programmer to model some bs not supported by any valid statistical or otherwise analysis. ever notice most climate alarmists and maskholes are women who everyone knows suck at science?
The solution is it has to be government mandated...look at China for example. They understand a better environment means cleaner air>which leaders to a cleaner and better country>which leads a better world>and their citizens are more content. Now I'm not saying China is perfect by any means but they are at least actively trying to work on this problem not they but we all have at hand.
Well I think that the mass of a tree (not the years) determines how much CO2 is absorbed by a tree and since 47.5% of the dry mass of a tree is carbon for every ton of tree mass we have 50% dry mass and 237.5kg of carbon or 871,63kg of CO2 absorbed. But let's assume that we need to plant 60 trillion trees for one year. Current world population today is ~8 billion so every single human on the planet(babies, children, adults and elderly) must plant 7,500 trees in one year. As we know this is not possible, so lets check who can plant these trees. A rough estimate is that an inexperienced, but physically fit, tree planter can plant 1,000 to 3,000 seedlings per day. A planting machine can plant up to 5,000 trees per hour at well-prepared sites, but we need to build the planting machines first. So lets say generously 1.1 million trees per year per physically fit person whose job is to plant 3000 trees day after day without break all year around. So we'd need 55 million physically fit people dedicated to plant 60 trillion trees or we need build 1,37 million planting machines for the planting job. After planting a tree to grow successfully needs ~50 liters of water per week so we need 3000 cubic km of fresh water every week for the 60 trillion trees. For comparison the Great Lakes of North America hold over 5,439 cubic miles of water or 22,671 cubic km or ~ 7.6 weeks of water for the trees... Not to mention all the logistics for the job. But 20 kg of CO2 per year is for mature trees. A tree becomes mature in around 40 years. Lets be generous and say we must growing them for 30 years. After 30 years of growing we must root out the trees and somehow don't let them rot because they will release the CO2 back to the atmosphere. Is that possible?... It is highly unlikely that tree planting plan to absorb the CO2 emitted from humans is feasible. That not means that we should stop planting trees, on a contrary we should at least restore the amount of deforested land and live more sustainably because we have only one planet that can support life(for now) …
What bothers me is the government selling carbon reductions (aka credits) to companies producing insane quantities of carbon.
What's the point of carbon reduction/capture if the government just sells the reduction to companies producing huge quantities of carbon pollution??
Paying for the externalities you produce. These companies should bear the financial burden caused by the problem they made. If that goes to removing an identical amount of carbon as they produce then it's net zero carbon emissions, which is pretty good and very hard.
The problem of course comes when they capture the co2 then have no place to store it so they just dump it out and yet still get the credits.
@@the1exnay These companies *RULE* people. You can't just through an angry comment at them stating _"These companies should bear the financial burden ... "_ . It never works.
It's entirely nonsensical. It's a snow job. A complete farse but the people have no idea what the truth is and rely on propaganda shoved down their throats. It's about control and profits. Look, if the environment was really important don't you think things like more returnable bottles and maybe less disposable stuff might be easier? More effective? How many tons of one time use products are consumed daily? Nobody talks about that? Why do you spose that is?
Electrolysis of liquid CO2 to solid C and gaseous O2 done under pressure and release the O2 and use the solid carbon as graphite for industry
@Work space compression and cooling which can both be done using renewable energy. The much harder part is separating the carbon and oxygen later, which would be impractically energy-intensive. Basic thermodynamics means we'd have to put more energy into that than we got out of burning the carbon in the first place, so short of science-fiction type infinite energy schemes (orbiting solar collectors, hydrogen fusion, etc.) the plan could never be feasible.
The editing on this video was hilarious
This is a 🤡 fo sho
My research lab is focusing on how to use photocatalysts instead of heat to release the amine solution
This is tremendously important and worthy of so much respect, but what's more important is that I read this as "anime solution" at first.
@@gibberscrabst321 I like the idea of Anime artwork as a solution to this overwhelming issue! A weekly animation show on Cartoon Network!
What if we use renewable energy as an energy source for the heating process? Wouldn’t that end the cycle of CO2 creation?
What if we use renewable energy as an energy source for the heating process? Wouldn’t that end the cycle of CO2 creation?
What if we use renewable energy as an energy source for the heating process? Wouldn’t that end the cycle of CO2 creation?
The best way to capture carbon is turning former wetlands back into wetlands. Much of the peat is still underground and will remain there once water returns, and new layers can be built up. This is much more effective than planting trees, and will restore an ecosystem that's almost entirely lost today.
But that runs into the same problem trees have: it takes so much space. Deforestation is largely fueled not by needing the wood but rather needing the land they occupy. I suspect it's similar for wetlands.
@@the1exnay It is. But wetlands are much better at this, and need to be restored for a number of other reasons. One is water security, another is biodiversity.
That is one of the best ways but we need many ways since there’s so much co2 in the atmosphere. We will have to utilize many different methods and these technological ones can be helpful.
@@raatoraamro1093 Sadly, these technological ones will only fool people into thinking that 'new inventions will fix things in the future, no need to actually change now', which will doom us. We need to tackle the crisis of biodiversity loss just as much as that of climate change.
@@dhindaravrel8712 these technologies are real and improving. They are an important tool that will help us. However you are right that first and foremost we need to change in order to reduce emissions. This tech alone won’t save us. The people working to develop it will tell you the same thing. I also agree with you that we need to tackle biodiversity loss with the same urgency.
So far, I looked at a few videos on youtube about carbon capture, and this is the best one.
Good information about the calcium and magnesium ions in seawater. Thank you.
Thermodynamics: CO2 is the lowest - energy form of carbon. Therefore any process to capture it will require more energy than was obtained from burning it in the first place.
Correction: it will require more energy to decompose(to carbon and oxygen) not to capture it...
Would a solar concentrator magnifier work to heat and break bonds instead of burning fuel.
Carbon dioxide is removed from space ships by using zeolite. Why not create a muffler with zeolite for automobiles with control valves to move the CO2 into a storage container.
Why not heat the alkaline amine solution with concentrated solar or nuclear energy?
I'd really like to see a deeper dive into carbonate-based sequestration. It seems like a great solution, but driving the H20 + CO2 ⇌ 2H(+) + CO3(2-) equilibrium right would accelerate oceanic acidification.
Thanks for the video. 🙂
@Editor I'm not the poster, but by affecting the balance of that equilibrium and trapping the CO3 somewhere else , you'd be leaving a bunch of extra 2H+ ions around in the ocean.
More H+ ions means more acidic, as pH corresponds inversely to the number of [H+] ions.
@Editor You're welcome! I knew my Chemistry would come in handy someday
XPRISE CARBON CAPTURE
The heat loss from a smokestack can be forced into a large tank containing hot liquid microcrystalline petroleum wax. The heat will keep the wax at a molten state which facilitate the carbon to be absorbed when combined with the wax. Carbon when mixed with wax reacts like a dye. The wax-carbon amalgamation result in a black wax solution thereby making it impossible for the carbon to escape into the environment. Other toxic particles are also captured in the wax settling at the bottom of the wax holding tank forming into a sludge. A sludge release valve is located at the bottom of the tank. After the sludge is removed more wax is replaced in the vessel working something like a toilet. The sludge becomes a byproduct that can be used as an additive to asphalt for roads or used for cocooning nuclear waste materials for long-term safe burial. The entropy of the Earth has been increasing at a startling rate since the beginning of the industrial revolution caused mainly by the carbon that is released into the atmosphere. Government scientists have failed to stop and prevent carbon pollution from entering the environment. This problem can only worsen until a solution is found before this problem becomes irreversible. It has been discovered that formulated wax has been shown to be the only answer to this problem. William Nelson
Why don’t we attempt to capture straight from the sources such as cars and factories
Great video! I'm an attorney trying to get involved in building out the massive carbon capture infrastructure that will be needed to realize our climate goals. One suggestion: I don't believe the distinction drawn in the video between carbon capture and storage/sequestration (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is accurate. There's a lot of overlap there, both technically and in general usage in the literature. CCS could technically include natural methods for capturing and storing carbon (e.g., planting trees) but generally refers to industrial techniques like point-source capture (PSC) and direct air capture (DAC), and storage/sequestration through enhanced oil recovery (EOR) or permanent geological sequestration (GS). CDR refers to both natural (e.g., aforestation) and industrial (e.g., DAC with GS) methods of removing carbon from the atmosphere (i.e., capturing carbon) _as well as storing it_. ("Removal" implies not putting carbon back into the atmosphere, so CDR would not include CCUS/EOR techniques.) Basically, CCS includes but is not coextensive with CDR. But again, thanks for the great video. I think it does a very good job explaining the necessity of these technologies and the trade-offs involved. The proposal to capture carbon from seawater and convert it into carbonate solids was news to me, definitely interesting stuff!
Just remember, if you get the hundred million, you promised you share!
All joking aside, I hope you don't mind me asking an aside here since you guys are a wonderful combination of knowledgeable, responsive, and forward with acknowledging what limitations on knowledge you DO have. I've asked this at various places and haven't gotten an answer, and I'm always curious, so I keep asking.
Regarding seismic activity from fossil fuel extraction...
On the global scale, tectonic activity is outside the scale of most human activity, because the Earth is, y'know, MASSIVE.
On the local scale, earthquakes are generally just tension being released.
That tension will build up, as a result of the Earth's natural activity, no matter what, right?
And since most earthquakes caused by the extraction of fossil fuels are, to my knowledge, relatively minor (4-ish on the Richter scale) then...
For illustrative purposes I'll use this hypothetical example:
If a natural fault line has tension building up that will, within the next few decades, end up causing a 7.0 earthquake... wouldn't man-made quakes in the same area cause a slight decrease in the intensity of the natural quakes?
This is clearly a MASSIVE oversimplification, but if a 7.0 earthquake equals a thousand 4.0 earthquakes, then wouldn't it be better to have, say, one or two 4.0 earthquakes every week than one 7.0 earthquake every fifty years?
This is not meant to dismiss of excuse fracking and other things. I'm just honestly curious if the seismic effects (I should have added that this question only applies in areas out regular seismic activity) are maybe not that bad of a side effect.
Like... a seismic safety valve?
Apologies for the tangential question. The core content was fascinating and I won't have any questions until I do a proper deep dive into the awesome information you've presented here.
And, as always, thank you all for everything
Deep saline formations are not deep in the ocean but deep underground, commonly deeper than oil and gas reservoirs. They can be underground both onshore and offshore.
I'm not an expert by any means, but if we are saying that we're planting trees so as to get back to pre-industrial carbon levels and we're likewise no longer emitting 43 billion tons of C02 per year then it seems like you would want to target carbon recapture goals for say 50 years? That way you're not just yanking global C02 and causing a massive swing in global climate and weather patterns. Plus when you eventually reach desired atmospheric C02 you don't want to end up in a situation where C02 is deeply net negative. That means you would be pulling about 26 billion tons of C02 out of the atmosphere per year and increasing the number of trees on earth by about a third
Yea good point Jaykob, however, the problem right now is that we have too much of CO2. And, to worry about its shortage when it is record high is like your bladder is full of pee and you are afraid you might dehydrate if you pee...the point is - you solve one problem at a time.
Establishing artificial islands to plant mangroves? Humanity has lost half of its coastal wetlands to coastal construction, yet mangrove forest are amongst the best carbon sequestrators. Since in many instances removing coastal communities and infrastructures is not an option, maybe we could establish artificial reefs in shallow areas of the ocean and use them to plant mangroves. Expensive, yes, but China and others have already built artificial islands, and the good thing about mangrove stands is that they not only sequester carbon, but store it as well. Any thoughts?
@@gregoryford2532 Yes, I saw that.
I wouldn't discount planting trees. I don't think we need to go to preindustrial CO2 levels. We just have to plant enough trees to balance the respiratory CO2 from humans atleast on a yearly basis. And calculation suggests having an acreage of almost 2 India. Well, it's large but large projects in increments in large open lands can be a start point. Yes , forests can burn but these re- grow as well and it's not like 50% acreage gets burnt. So point in case , forests are critical and must be on the table.
I worry about this "stored CO2" - have we learned anything from Love Canal? Nothing stays "stored" forever.
This is why I'm against putting CO2 into deep sea formations, some archaea will eventually get to it and they might even metabolise it into methane. If we put all our excess CO2 into the sea, and if the archaea got to it, and let's say that methane is 20 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, then suddenly we've just recreated climate change but at 20x scale. I'd much rather take a few hundred small earthquakes on land than the chance of this methane leak happening.
But I will say that the carbonate idea sounds much more promising, wouldn't have the archaea problem
I'm not a chemist but I wondered if it was possible to remove the O2 from the carbon which I presume would leave the carbon as charcoal? Then O2 could be released into the atmosphere?
That would take more energy than we got out of burning the carbon in the first place.
@@willythemailboy2 so a nuclear reactors + solar/wind/hydro power would be ideal
@@06.vineethdsouza80 Yeah, but instead of converting CO2 to C and O2, let's directly use that energy to power the economy. That way the cost will be less. And also hydro is far dirtier than coal plants.
Attached it to airplanes...put those tanks in those very warm countries so u dont need fire...
Get the CO2 from the source producing it instead of trying to filter from the open. You'll get more CO2.
Create a device that attach things that produce CO2
if only someone would make a video that covers this exact idea from, say, 1:42 - 3:10...
Why not both?
Maybe instead of one giant fan maybe we can have a bunch of little fans in homes and public spaces that absorb and store co2? Then get the captured co2 taken out once a week like compost, trash and recyclables?
Why not genetically modifiy trees to make them grow bigger with more ability to photosynthesise?
Hi there, please please help me, I can’t find what solution I should use for Amine Scrubbing. I need to do it for a science fair.
Where could you get enough calcium to make the calcite?
The full paper is available at the link below, but the short answer is that you're using dissolved CO2, Ca, and Mg-all of which are in abundant supply in seawater-to form carbonate minerals.
pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c08561
@@ACSReactions
Wow, that actually sounds doable. That's the first I've heard of a way to store carbon that doesn't sound like it'll just be rereleased. And it does seem there is way more than enough calcium in seawater to make this possible.
This gives me some hope
That Credence joke was a pretty deep cut.
"It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, one...." now I got this stuck in my head
Is planting 1e12 trees such a bad idea?
If we allocate 10m^2 per tree, it would require ~ all of the area of Brazil to have 1e12 trees. Each living human has to plant 10k trees - a grid of 100x100. It's a titanic task, but not impossible.
Before humans started burning fossil-fuels, the earth was still spewing out CO2 from volcanoes etc. If a certain number of trees could keep the equilibrium back then, then the same number of trees, plus a bit more to play "catch-up" _must_ be able to revert us back to that equilibrium.
PS - 20 kg/yr?? Where does this number come from? Seems tiny for a tree occupying 10m^2.
3:52
Is that an average or using data from mauna loa?
I wonder if it would be easier to try to sequester the Carbon around densely populated areas and factories
First of all, don't pull CO2 from the atmosphere, but from the ocean, where it is more concentrated and already dissolved in a solution rather than a gas. Second of all use the natural carbon cycle in your favor to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and into the ocean to replace what you removed. Third of all, use OTEC to power the process. This will allow you to utilize the entire surface of the ocean as a giant solar thermal collector.
Finally don't store it as CO2 but rather as hydrocarbons, carbonates, or pure carbon allotropes from diamond to graphene to carbon nanotubes.
OK, I look at the article. I'm seeing a crystal growth in an insulation I'm Making. I don't understand it. But I'm using the same materials but in a different process.
My idea - Freeze naughty people in carbonate, (the fatter the better) and store them all like a terracotta army.
.... billionaires will naturally compete to own the biggest carbonate army thus making a huge financial incentive.
Expand the storing for CO2 in the ocean expand the area for mangrove, seaweed, seagrass and diatoms.
Please make a video about the project that uses ocean waves to pump up rich ocean water all by ocean waves to promote algee growth to then capture.
If only such a contraption grew out of the ground 😔
it would take 60 trillion trees and there are only 3 trillion trees in the world
@@ivanlu4044 No, she didn't. She just dismissed them as "too slow". But I can challenge, if we start planting more trees, restoring forests and habitats right now; it will remove adequate amount of carbon long b4 carbon removal techs comes close to maturity. Not to mention, 900 million trees are cut each day. Just stopping that might be the next best thing to do, not wasting $100million on speculative technology that may never come to fruition.
Why are people trying to store CO2 physically? Maybe develop a method that breaks the bond between carbon and oxygen...
And then release it back into the atmosphere? It would just become CO2 again.
@@finn54123 only if the carbon was set on fire.
@@triynizzles oh ok. Idk but I’m sure there’s a good reason
If you are looking for away to help the environment and fight climate change you can use ecosia they are a search engine that plants trees
CCS is carbon capture and storage. Source of co2 doesn’t matter. Smoke stack, atmosphere, it’s agnostic. So CCS can be used for CDR.
Imagine if there was a carbon neutral energy production technology that doesn't rely on any form of fossil fuels... Perhaps using the energy built up in big atomic nucleae..?
One can only imagine...
Very important Issue for sure and I’m not surprised that it’s proprietary information
Algae is the best option other than trees. Also soil sequestration of carbon which also increases the Cation exchange capacity of the soil making it more fertile.
Elon Musk never keeps his promises. But luckily cool stuff happens without him!
Hey I want to thank the whole team for putting out this amazing content ❤️
Loved the CCR references. lol
Censored scientists have noted that the one volcanic eruption in Indonesia emitted more co2 than all the emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution----so is this about a carbon tax? if the military would stop doing Geo engineering-causing floods in Australia, and if they would fill the reservoirs so we can have water, ----yes they let all the flood water out to sea... we could grow crops to eat which also sequesters carbon----??????
For anyone that comes up with the apparatus that will be able to remove the CO2, make sure to patent it and license it to Elon. He has a nasty habit of putting engineers and scientists against each other to "win the price" and then calling it his own and taking credit. So, go engineer a solution and lawyer up and patent it.
I thought co² are an essential to living plants. Why remove it.
Lest we forget Sebastiao & Leila who planted a forest
Why someone wants to store CO2 instead of C?
How to make a project in this topic..
Grow bamboo on a conveyor belt.
Elon shall not "contribute/give $100 MM for a CC method". He will take it from you and obtain his own Patent.
Im a bit confused as to why we need to? The carbon we have been releasing into the atmosphere was there initially. Excess Co2 accelerates plant growth. Its part of a cycle. Yes we are just playing a bigger part than say, before the industrial revolution. Why are we acting like its a bad thing? Because we don't live in a static environment and change is scary? btw, the ocean is the largest inorganic reservoir we have. When the balance tips to far, look out for more algae bloom's to exploit that opportunity just as they did in the past.
you want actionable solution? people are about 18% carbon, Plant matter is between 50-60% More of those things?... or.....Heat up in a oxygen deprived environment.....Surprise! you now have bricks of carbon, did I win the 100M yet?
Trees isn’t enough and too slow.
If someone figures out how to capture the CO2 effectively then find a efficient way to take it to mars lol
or use it to make equipment and fuel for Mars
@@valeriandsouza4763 Yes, more speculation on speculation.
Sure. Launching 1Kg of material burns thousands of gallons of kerosene. So, take that captured carbon to Mars, and release thousands of times of more CO2 on Earth in the process. And humans will be on Mars by 2020 just as Musk claimed.
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 I know, that why I said "then find a efficient way to take it to mars."
Oh, you just don’t know there is something called algae!
how is it with all these consultants that you didnt get the Musk prize value right- its $50M to the outright winner. The total pot for all the prizes is $100M
If ice and permafrost are melting and freeing co2 why not pump air into the ground where it's cold enough to re trap it? An old well pipe may suffice. An air tube down to water capped air tight with a one way valve running on solar 24/7. A barrel full of water would freeze from the top down. After the top freezes pump air bubbles through the bottom. When it's frozen solid it could be buried. Why bother separating out co2 and methane at all? It seems like any breakthroughs that could help save humanity are being held for ransom that cannot be paid. I believe it's because of a total absence of integrity. The science behind these expensive solutions is used in a sales pitch to scare people into throwing money at it. Oldest trick in the book for the fat guys in sales. It's hard to see the benefits of using tax money to fund science and tech if nobody can afford it. The same could be said for funding businesses. How much are they benefitting the economy if they're polluting, depleting resources, hoarding money from the entire country, undermining our democracy by lobbying, using inflation as leverage, wrecking bodies of workers without providing medical coverage, hacking benefits while collecting from the government and using science against people? That's the problem with businesses. They're only helping themselves at the expense of the rest of us. This is why industry can never serve man...because industry has tricked man into serving industry with blind faith.
Very nice explanation
Why not bioengineer a fast growing tree with a extremely deep and thick root system?
It takes a while to grow, but I suppose could also be used to slow desertification or something?
First sentence"big OF an industry" ??? This is no language we recognise today! Big an industry would do just fine thanks!
Heh! Seems like planting tree, building ecosystem, restoring forest are still the best method. I bet you that this will suck out CO2 long b4 CDR technology matures. Not to mention, the fans of CDR plants will emit a hefty amount of themselves, the sea-grass and kelp farms will easily destroy coastal ecosystem.
Azolla fern
Rocket the co2 to space!! 🚀 Elon approves
If floating trees in sea 🌊
I bet that Elon musk watched this
Trees are not a long term solution as carbon cycle dictates the carbon will be released again at some point. Obviously trees will work just fine in the ultra long term but I don't think humans have 100 million years to spare.
Doesn’t that carbon capture technology create hydrogen?
The idea is worth a fortune more than 100 mil. Sorry Elon, he's not the fortunate son.
Referring to fifty years from now is quite optimistic.
I have idea to capture carbon first place
Is charcoaling a potential option? Grow something with absurd growth rates like switchgrass or bamboo, convert it to charcoal, and bury the charcoal back into abandoned coal mines?
This was a great watch, thank you 😊
50 years? 20 year?
No, try FIVE.
Plant trees,. I promise that i thought of that too, that's what I've been saying
Yes, carbon is a chemical element with clear non-metallic properties, from the elements of the periodic table and is found in the periodic table in group IVA (or 4 A
its about venus and mars and titan we fix earth then mars then venus then eventually titan
Weve screwed things up so now lets let the same people who screwed it up fix it? 🤔
Nice video.
Love everything about the thumbnail 😍
Thanks for this wonderful video.
100 million prize is not much nowadays in 2021 for that large scale technology got to up the prize to 500 million at least
You can offer any prize you like.
@@spindoctor6385 as soon I build up 200 billion dollars in the bank account
It’s the largest prize in history
Thank you so much for this informative content!
2:05
Amazing video 😄
Love this video, so good
This is a scam.
You will resale at least same amount of co2 driving the machinery.
Wtf is wrong with you yt scientists?
hes got wolderful lips. i cannot remember anything else this video
just mass produce that bacteria taht eats co2? and put it everywhere? lol jk
Cool
Why dont get capture the carbon, store it in a rocket and launch it towards the sun?
Bro just suggested we extinguish the sun
@@yohaijohn 😂
I don't get the music joke. I feel like I should tho.
CCS = Carbon Capture & Storage
CDR = Carbon Dioxide Removal
CCR = Creedence Clearwater Revival
We're trying to show the UA-cam audience that we're young and hip.
@@ACSReactions oh yes of course. The "ol' appeal to the he youngsters by makin references to bands that that broke up before their parents were born". A classic. :) now, Personally I would go with a more modern band, that hasn't broken up, like The Who, or One Direction.
@@LeoStaley I remember CCR quite clearly and fondly. I've even been to one of their concerts.
@@gregoryford2532 that was the joke I was making. 😝
Patay imong ki update
Hahahahaha
Cracked video hehe
@@tech9210 what
@@carboncapture8299 nggggge
@@carboncapture8299 what
But why????? Yet another way of generating money from nothing
Then why aren't people doing it 😡 😡 😡
Sounds like it's a big scam
Too YOU everything is a big fucking scam. Get a fucking GRIP.
Oh, you just don’t know there is something called algae!